Angela Rayner - Fit to direct education policy?

#81
That's not what AM said. If you introduce the planned Labour idea of limiting the maximum salary to the minimum salary in a company, then any business that pays the minimum wage to any member of staff has automatically set a ceiling on the top salary they can pay.

To increase the top salary available, they would have to raise the salary of the lowest paid employees by the same ratio. That then presumably necessitates a pay rise for all staff, otherwise what is the incentive for the extra work and responsibility of a higher level job?
Or they reorganise they company such that all the NMW staff are employed by a sub-contractor rather than them and its trebles all round again.
 
#82
cartoonesque rhetoric
Actually, sod it. I'll bite.

I watched John McDonnell on a video at the weekend, on a thread here on ARRSE. He was talking about direct action and holding the Tories to account for their 'crimes against the working class'.

Labour raided the pension funds - which included the pensions of many of the working class (note: working class, not welfare-dependent class). The result was a run on property prices, as people tried to make their money make money (interest rates meaning that it was barely worth your while saving), with the further result that many working-class people struggled to be able to afford to get on or stay on the property ladder.

That was compounded by Labour's policy of encouraging mass inward migration to try and 'change forever' the country's demographics and voting habits. Further increasing pressure on housing. Further affecting the working class (note: working class, not welfare-dependent class).

Oh, and then throw in Labour being in hock to big business and the effects that EU migration plus mass inward migration from elsewhere and the effects that had on low- and semi-skilled jobs, and the indigenous working (not welfare-dependent) population.

Show me, in parallel with this, the huge programme of house and infrastructure building that Labour instituted to solve the issue.

You can institute a programme of house construction and so on. It would be better if the country was affordable to live in. That, though, would require some long-term planning and would severely affect the amounts that you're handing out in benefits to the 'working class' (this being the Labour-dependent, welfare-dependent 'working class', not those actually working).

Then you can also offer tax credits. It makes a nice, dependent voting block ("Because those nasty Tories will take your money away").

You're right: tax credits and dependency aren't the answer. But neither is robbing pensions, selling out to big business and actively working to change the country forever.

Brief aside: who of the population of this country, at the time it was going on, as an unstated policy, would ask for mass inward migration? Few. Certainly not a majority. Not because they are racist but because this is their home and they rather like it as it is. Especially those who've worked for what they have - which must by definition include the working class.

'Fair' does not mean everyone having the same. It means just reward for effort in. And people do want to progress. However, at the point Blair made his mawkish farewell speech as PM social mobility in this country was at its lowest since WWII. All the tinkering had failed.

Youth unemployment in particular was an issue. A lot of those low-level jobs that used to be around had been hoovered up by migrants (and I don't for a moment criticise the self-starting who've come over here to better themselves), the ones that used to work up to artisanal skills had also been crowded out by skilled workers coming over and being willing to work for less - in part because (here's a thing) the cost of living back home was far less and it was worth a period of hard graft over here to pay things off at home.

Simple: ram 50 percent through university. How to pay for it? Ah. Student fees. Represented, for reasons of dogma, as 'fair' (the line was, "The dustman of today should not be paying for the solicitor of tomorrow" - never mind that the solicitor might be the dustman's son or daughter).

So, so far we've got pricing housing beyond affordability. We've got removal of jobs that many of the real working class would once have filled. We've still got Brown spending like a drunken sailor and giving us a national debt that was the biggest in peacetime - this despite having inherited a surplus and having raided the pensions and got billions more than he anticipated.

Who committed crimes against the working class? Who forced a position where the country has to make cuts to pay off the debts?

But all of this is cartoonish rhetoric, surely. Because all is the Tories' fault. Not only did Corbyn subsequently renege on his commitment to kill student fees and debt, he also conveniently forgot who instituted them.

But: cartoonish rhetoric. We don't have Seb Corbyn in a cosy job with John McDonnell - and with a flat in London making him a nice little earner. We don't have young Kinnock. We don't have young Blair being set up for a safe Labour seat. We didn't have Tony Benn doing clever things with his money such that his kids weren't too bothered by taxes on inheritances. We didn't have Diane Abbot sending her offspring to private school. Or other Labour MP's sons earning a pretty penny as the 'hired help'.

We don't have nepotism in Labour. We have raw talent and a scrupulously egalitarian outlook. Unfortunately, it's only for those who are slavishly on-message.

Cartoonish rhetoric? Or a weariness with those who only engage in Whataboutery and very closed arguments which suit their purposes?
 

Sadurian

LE
Book Reviewer
#83
Actually, sod it. I'll bite.

I watched John McDonnell on a video at the weekend, on a thread here on ARRSE. He was talking about direct action and holding the Tories to account for their 'crimes against the working class'.

Labour raided the pension funds - which included the pensions of many of the working class (note: working class, not welfare-dependent class). The result was a run on property prices, as people tried to make their money make money (interest rates meaning that it was barely worth your while saving), with the further result that many working-class people struggled to be able to afford to get on or stay on the property ladder.

That was compounded by Labour's policy of encouraging mass inward migration to try and 'change forever' the country's demographics and voting habits. Further increasing pressure on housing. Further affecting the working class (note: working class, not welfare-dependent class).

Oh, and then throw in Labour being in hock to big business and the effects that EU migration plus mass inward migration from elsewhere and the effects that had on low- and semi-skilled jobs, and the indigenous working (not welfare-dependent) population.

Show me, in parallel with this, the huge programme of house and infrastructure building that Labour instituted to solve the issue.

You can institute a programme of house construction and so on. It would be better if the country was affordable to live in. That, though, would require some long-term planning and would severely affect the amounts that you're handing out in benefits to the 'working class' (this being the Labour-dependent, welfare-dependent 'working class', not those actually working).

Then you can also offer tax credits. It makes a nice, dependent voting block ("Because those nasty Tories will take your money away").

You're right: tax credits and dependency aren't the answer. But neither is robbing pensions, selling out to big business and actively working to change the country forever.

Brief aside: who of the population of this country, at the time it was going on, as an unstated policy, would ask for mass inward migration? Few. Certainly not a majority. Not because they are racist but because this is their home and they rather like it as it is. Especially those who've worked for what they have - which must by definition include the working class.

'Fair' does not mean everyone having the same. It means just reward for effort in. And people do want to progress. However, at the point Blair made his mawkish farewell speech as PM social mobility in this country was at its lowest since WWII. All the tinkering had failed.

Youth unemployment in particular was an issue. A lot of those low-level jobs that used to be around had been hoovered up by migrants (and I don't for a moment criticise the self-starting who've come over here to better themselves), the ones that used to work up to artisanal skills had also been crowded out by skilled workers coming over and being willing to work for less - in part because (here's a thing) the cost of living back home was far less and it was worth a period of hard graft over here to pay things off at home.

Simple: ram 50 percent through university. How to pay for it? Ah. Student fees. Represented, for reasons of dogma, as 'fair' (the line was, "The dustman of today should not be paying for the solicitor of tomorrow" - never mind that the solicitor might be the dustman's son or daughter).

So, so far we've got pricing housing beyond affordability. We've got removal of jobs that many of the real working class would once have filled. We've still got Brown spending like a drunken sailor and giving us a national debt that was the biggest in peacetime - this despite having inherited a surplus and having raided the pensions and got billions more than he anticipated.

Who committed crimes against the working class? Who forced a position where the country has to make cuts to pay off the debts?

But all of this is cartoonish rhetoric, surely. Because all is the Tories' fault. Not only did Corbyn subsequently renege on his commitment to kill student fees and debt, he also conveniently forgot who instituted them.

But: cartoonish rhetoric. We don't have Seb Corbyn in a cosy job with John McDonnell - and with a flat in London making him a nice little earner. We don't have young Kinnock. We don't have young Blair being set up for a safe Labour seat. We didn't have Tony Benn doing clever things with his money such that his kids weren't too bothered by taxes on inheritances. We didn't have Diane Abbot sending her offspring to private school. Or other Labour MP's sons earning a pretty penny as the 'hired help'.

We don't have nepotism in Labour. We have raw talent and a scrupulously egalitarian outlook. Unfortunately, it's only for those who are slavishly on-message.

Cartoonish rhetoric? Or a weariness with those who only engage in Whataboutery and very closed arguments which suit their purposes?
"Thank you for all that but again… 'do you want your coffee black or white?' "
 
#84
Actually, sod it. I'll bite.

I watched John McDonnell on a video at the weekend, on a thread here on ARRSE. He was talking about direct action and holding the Tories to account for their 'crimes against the working class'.

Labour raided the pension funds - which included the pensions of many of the working class (note: working class, not welfare-dependent class). The result was a run on property prices, as people tried to make their money make money (interest rates meaning that it was barely worth your while saving), with the further result that many working-class people struggled to be able to afford to get on or stay on the property ladder.

That was compounded by Labour's policy of encouraging mass inward migration to try and 'change forever' the country's demographics and voting habits. Further increasing pressure on housing. Further affecting the working class (note: working class, not welfare-dependent class).

Oh, and then throw in Labour being in hock to big business and the effects that EU migration plus mass inward migration from elsewhere and the effects that had on low- and semi-skilled jobs, and the indigenous working (not welfare-dependent) population.

Show me, in parallel with this, the huge programme of house and infrastructure building that Labour instituted to solve the issue.

You can institute a programme of house construction and so on. It would be better if the country was affordable to live in. That, though, would require some long-term planning and would severely affect the amounts that you're handing out in benefits to the 'working class' (this being the Labour-dependent, welfare-dependent 'working class', not those actually working).

Then you can also offer tax credits. It makes a nice, dependent voting block ("Because those nasty Tories will take your money away").

You're right: tax credits and dependency aren't the answer. But neither is robbing pensions, selling out to big business and actively working to change the country forever.

Brief aside: who of the population of this country, at the time it was going on, as an unstated policy, would ask for mass inward migration? Few. Certainly not a majority. Not because they are racist but because this is their home and they rather like it as it is. Especially those who've worked for what they have - which must by definition include the working class.

'Fair' does not mean everyone having the same. It means just reward for effort in. And people do want to progress. However, at the point Blair made his mawkish farewell speech as PM social mobility in this country was at its lowest since WWII. All the tinkering had failed.

Youth unemployment in particular was an issue. A lot of those low-level jobs that used to be around had been hoovered up by migrants (and I don't for a moment criticise the self-starting who've come over here to better themselves), the ones that used to work up to artisanal skills had also been crowded out by skilled workers coming over and being willing to work for less - in part because (here's a thing) the cost of living back home was far less and it was worth a period of hard graft over here to pay things off at home.

Simple: ram 50 percent through university. How to pay for it? Ah. Student fees. Represented, for reasons of dogma, as 'fair' (the line was, "The dustman of today should not be paying for the solicitor of tomorrow" - never mind that the solicitor might be the dustman's son or daughter).

So, so far we've got pricing housing beyond affordability. We've got removal of jobs that many of the real working class would once have filled. We've still got Brown spending like a drunken sailor and giving us a national debt that was the biggest in peacetime - this despite having inherited a surplus and having raided the pensions and got billions more than he anticipated.

Who committed crimes against the working class? Who forced a position where the country has to make cuts to pay off the debts?

But all of this is cartoonish rhetoric, surely. Because all is the Tories' fault. Not only did Corbyn subsequently renege on his commitment to kill student fees and debt, he also conveniently forgot who instituted them.

But: cartoonish rhetoric. We don't have Seb Corbyn in a cosy job with John McDonnell - and with a flat in London making him a nice little earner. We don't have young Kinnock. We don't have young Blair being set up for a safe Labour seat. We didn't have Tony Benn doing clever things with his money such that his kids weren't too bothered by taxes on inheritances. We didn't have Diane Abbot sending her offspring to private school. Or other Labour MP's sons earning a pretty penny as the 'hired help'.

We don't have nepotism in Labour. We have raw talent and a scrupulously egalitarian outlook. Unfortunately, it's only for those who are slavishly on-message.

Cartoonish rhetoric? Or a weariness with those who only engage in Whataboutery and very closed arguments which suit their purposes?
An excellent post. This should be printed out and delivered to every household in the country. Weekly.
 
#85
There are no doubt a great number of people who consider her achievements to be remarkable and to be held up as a shining example of how a strong work ethic can lead to great things.
A 'strong work ethic' and 'Union stooge' are not two that I would automatically put together
 
#88
I mean, really? Were you cringing at the thought of TM, someone with no policing experience, trying to reform the police; Gordon Brown, someone with no banking experience trying to reform the banks, Michael Gove, someone with no teaching experience trying to reform schools, various Ministers of Defence and the Army, and so on.

Basically every politician we have had ever has no actual experience of their brief. Why is this one particularly noteworthy?

When Cyprus was admitted to the EU its representative was chair of a Rail Improvement Committee. Cyprus doesn't have a railway system.
 
#91
When Cyprus was admitted to the EU its representative was chair of a Rail Improvement Committee. Cyprus doesn't have a railway system.
It had until 1951 a narrow gauge railway known as the Cyprus Government Railway. Prehaps it's representative at the EU wanted to play with the big boys and thier big trains.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top